Library Faculty Publications Library Faculty/Staff Scholarship & Research

Fall 2019

From Responsible Custody to Responsible Stewardship

Michelle Light
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, michelle.light@unlv.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/lib_articles

Part of the Archival Science Commons

Repository Citation
Light, M. (2019). From Responsible Custody to Responsible Stewardship. In Christine Weideman; Mary A.
Caldera, Society of American Archivists.
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/lib_articles/590

This Book Section is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital
Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Book Section in any way that
is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to
obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons
license in the record and/or on the work itself.

This Book Section has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of
Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact digitalscholarship@unlv.edu.
 Excerpt from
Archival Values:
Essays in Honor of Mark A. Greene
Edited by Christine Weideman and Mary A. Caldera

Forthcoming from the Society of American Archivists, Fall 2019

www.archivists.org/bookstore

Chapter 9: From Responsible Custody to Responsible Stewardship

by Michelle Light

In his presidential address at the August 2008 Society of American Archivists (SAA) Annual

Meeting, Mark Greene enumerated ten archival values: professionalism, collectivity, activism,

selection, preservation, democracy, service, diversity, use and access, and history. He did not

include the concept of responsible custody. Inspired by Greene’s address, SAA Council charged
a task force to develop a statement of “Core Values of Archivists” in February.i In February

2010, the task force reported that it reviewed and ranked Mark Greene’s values along with value

statements from several related professional organizations.ii In May 2010, the task force

submitted an early draft to Council for discussion. Responsible custody was not represented in

this draft either. The draft included access and use, accountability, advocacy, diversity, history

and memory, preservation, professionalism, selection, service, and social responsibility.iii After

discussing the submitted draft, Council “suggested adding language to the draft on the

importance of stewardship.”iv

In August 2010, the task force presented a second draft to Council that included responsible

custody.v Council approved this draft and asked the group to gather member feedback about it. In

March 2011 over email, the group presented Council with a revised draft that incorporated

suggestions from a variety of sources. Concerns were expressed that “Task Force revisions

significantly changed the understanding, tone, and context of the August 2010 draft,” so Council

tabled discussion until the May 2011 meeting.vi For this meeting, Council member Scott Cline

drafted a new revision. Council suggested minor revisions and adopted the statement.vii The

wording for the responsible custody value was edited but remained similar in spirit.

After reviewing this history, I became curious about why the core values included the concept of

custody when archival thinking has challenged the concept for decades. Custody seemed like a

remarkably old-fashioned value for 2011. As the introduction to the core values states, values are

supposed to “embody what a profession stands for and should form the basis for the behavior of

its members.”viii Council intended for the values to be “core beliefs that are not expected to
change over time.”ix In this essay, I will review archival literature to show how the concept of

custody, as articulated in this value, has evolved over the past few decades. I argue that the value

should be revised to account for an increasing variety of approaches that archivists use to

safeguard and steward archival materials for present and future stakeholders. Beginning with F.

Gerald Ham’s seminal 1981 article “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” I will

highlight postcustodial debates in the electronic records environment, advocacy for cultural

sensitivity in native or colonial archives, and new models for stewardship associated with the

community archives movement. This review will demonstrate the need to bring this value more

in line with an increasingly digital environment and pluralistic society. I suggest that the value be

revised as “responsible stewardship,” or even “respectful stewardship.” By introducing a

commitment to people in this value—whether donors, members of a documented community,

users, or other stakeholders—the value can better accommodate the participation of groups or

communities in the long-term care of their archives, rather than focusing on management or

ownership of an institution’s holdings.

Looking back through human history, the physical custody of records has long been associated

with archives as well as with the power to assert control over communities through the rights or

evidence represented within the records.x Custody has also been associated with our identity as

archivists. Terry Cook summarizes this professional mentality: “Archivists are the ‘keepers.’ We

look after records placed under our care. We rescue things when no one else needs them. We

lovingly restore and conserve them. We preserve them in our vaults forever.”xi
This imagery goes back centuries. Ernst Posner, for example, cited archaeological evidence from

2100 BCE of Assyrians collecting tablets and housing them together in single locations.xii T. R.

Schellenberg opened his Modern Archives manual with the sixth-century Roman emperor

Justinian’s call for establishing archives and appointing individuals responsible for their custody

and protection: “Let . . . a public building be allocated, in which building the magistrate

(defensor) is to store the records, choosing someone to have custody over them so that they

remain uncorrupted and may be found quickly by those requiring them, and let there be among

them an archives. . . .”xiii Luciana Duranti also summarized the Western history of archives as

sacrosanct places for creating and preserving trustworthy evidence. In Duranti’s model, when

records cross the threshold into archival custody, they are endowed with “trustworthiness” and

gain the “capacity of serving as evidence and continuing memory of action.”xiv Archival custody

helps ensure authenticity and carries with it the responsibility to preserve this authenticity over

time.xv Archival custody guarantees a “neutral third party” accountable for securing records from

tampering or degradation.xvi

Responsible custody appears prominently as a core value in Hilary Jenkinson’s A Manual of

Archive Administration published in 1922. For Jenkinson, the quality of an archives, that is its

impartiality and authenticity, depends on proving that an archives has an “unbroken chain of

custody” or an “unblemished line of responsible custodians.”xvii A responsible custodian’s first

and most important duty is to “take all possible precautions for the safeguarding of his Archives

and for their custody.”xviii Ideally, a responsible custodian might be the original custodian of an

archives connected with the administrative function that created them, or a successor custodian

who legitimately inherited the archives, perhaps a different administrative authority or a public
records office staffed by archivists. Legitimate, legal, physical, continuous, and guarded custody

are all necessary attributes. Those archives without a legitimate heir, where an archivist might

“go out of his way and intervene uninvited to save the life and character of the Archives,”xix

occupy a lesser status. Even though the line of custody might be blemished, “merely to save

Archives so important for local history by offering them an asylum is a work of piety and

usefulness.”xx However, these documents may not merit the status of an archives because of the

circumstances of their custody.

Jenkinson also outlined required activities for “proper custody.” Responsible custodians must

defend the archives against two chief types of danger: “physical and moral.”xxi To guard against

physical danger, responsible custodians must safeguard storage buildings from environmental

hazards, provide suitable storage conditions, protect archives from unauthorized access or theft,

and treat materials skillfully so as not to damage them. To guard against moral dangers,

archivists must supervise access to archives, guard against marking or altering documents,

maintain original order, and use best practices for arrangement and description. SAA’s

responsible custody value is clearly inspired by Jenkinson.

In the United States context three decades after Jenkinson’s publication, T. K. Schellenberg

rejected Jenkinson’s emphasis on unbroken custody as a defining feature of legitimate archives,

noting that “modern records are large in volume, complex in origins, and frequently haphazard in

their development.”xxii Schellenberg based the quality of records on preserving their integrity and

evidentiary value. But Schellenberg also emphasized an “archivist’s custodial responsibilities.”

To “discharge his duties effectively,” an archivist must have legal and physical custody over the
records. Schellenberg focused mostly on public records, so he was careful to distinguish “public

ownership” of the records from the custody necessary to care for them.xxiii Nevertheless, he

emphasized that legal and physical custody gives an archivist the “rights and privileges” to

reproduce and authenticate copies, and to arrange, describe, and publish records to make them

accessible for use. He quoted Waldo Leland: “Nothing but vexatious friction can come of any

arrangement that permits the legal custody of archives to remain with those who no longer

possess them.”xxiv Lack of physical and legal custody impedes the work of an archivist to

manage archives.

For those who work in collecting repositories, best practice today is still to gain physical and

legal custody of archives to facilitate their long-term management. SAA’s 2013 “Guide to Deeds

of Gifts” explains: “Repositories prefer to accept materials through transfer of ownership. The

cost of storing, preserving, and making collections available for research is so high that

repositories generally can afford to do so only for materials they own.”xxv Securing rights

becomes especially important for reproductions, digitization, and other forms of subsequent

distribution and publication. The differences between custody and ownership, and their

relationship to property, may vary in different contexts, depending on the nature of the archival

records, the holding institution, relevant laws, any agreements in place, and other stakeholders.

But, abstractly, owning an archives or other form of property, or holding physical and legal

custody over an archives or other property, entitles the holder to a bundle of rights—the right to

use the archives freely, the right to exclude others from using it, and the right to manage, sell,

give, or abandon it.xxvi

The life-cycle model of records, employed by United States National Archives and Records

Administration and others in the United States, neatly takes advantage of this model to control

the use, access to, and fate of an archives after the creator transfers materials to archival custody

or ownership. In the life-cycle model, records follow a linear progression, from creation, to

maintenance and use, to disposition. If records have historical value after their active use, they

are transferred to archival custody. Once in archival custody, creators cede their stake and

claims, so archivists can arrange, describe, preserve, reproduce, and provide access to the

archives as they find appropriate and without undue impediment.

In the past few decades, however, several challenges have arisen to the assumption that custody

at the end of the record life cycle is an essential foundation for archival programs. In 1981,

Gerald Ham called for postcustodial strategies to deal with new technologies and increasing

masses of records. He believed that our “custodial ethos also has made us excessively proprietary

toward our holdings” and “preoccupied with our own gardens.”xxvii For Ham, custody was a

concept that undermined our responsibilities as archivists: “Our perception of ourselves as

custodians has now become a deterrent to the effective management of the national record.”xxviii

He offered two strategies in this postcustodial environment: interinstitutional cooperation and

outreach. He called on archival repositories to assume a more dynamic, service-oriented role, “to

act not only as custodians for records, but also to facilitate and coordinate inter-institutional

activities and to provide services for less developed programs.”xxix Concerned with the

proliferation of small, underresourced institutions that collected and managed records with little

planning, he encouraged “archival service centers” to offer “traditional services in a new

cooperative setting,” including purchasing archival supplies, conservation or microfilming,

appraising or surveying records, or processing collections.xxx He called on archival service

centers to change their core missions to offer this service-oriented leadership, rather than

focusing exclusively on holdings in their custody. He also recognized potential issues when one

partner has more or less resources than the other, so he warned archival service centers to

approach partnerships with truly cooperative intentions and not become “self-serving nor

paternalistic.”xxxi He also saw great potential in the ability of historical records advisory boards

to coordinate planning and action among many types of institutions in a region.xxxii

While the current SAA core value of responsible custody encourages archivists to “collaborate

with external partners,” it focuses archivists’ activities on ensuring “proper custody” for the

archives “entrusted to them” and “the holdings of their institutions.” This value does not provide

much room for Ham’s more service-oriented approach, where archivists of mainstream

institutions might help other institutions or apply their expertise to archives outside their custody,

perhaps as consultants, facilitators, collaborators, or resource coordinators. SAA’s core value of

“service” fits Ham’s approach better, as it allows archivists to “provide effective and efficient

connections to (and mediation for) primary sources so that users, whoever they may be, can

discover and benefit from the archival record of society, its institutions, and individuals.”xxxiii

However, the service value seems to emphasize access or reference services, rather than ensuring

the “future of the historical record” in Ham’s vision, with archivists leading the way to

collaborate in planning and managing a multilevel, cooperative archival program.

Following the publication of Ham’s article, postcustodial approaches gained more traction as

archivists faced increasing volumes of electronic records, not only because they no longer
managed exclusively physical items, but also because of the multifaceted difficulties of assuming

permanent custody of electronic records created in a variety of technological and sociopolitical

contexts. Terry Cook summarized the postcustodial approach as moving from archives to

archiving. Rather than focusing on “physical things under our institutional custody,” archives

would serve as “access hubs” or auditing centers for records left in place in their original

systems.xxxiv Terry Cook called on archivists to broaden their understanding of how they use the

archival principle of provenance in the long-term management of records and to engage more

with “the conceptual context, business processes, and functional purpose” behind the creation of

records. Rather than waiting to receive archival records at the end of their life cycles, he

encouraged archivists to work with records creators to design information systems that captured

and preserved records from the most important functions, transactions, or activities.xxxv In this

way, archivists could ensure “corporate accountability, business process integrity, legal concerns,

policy continuity, and operating memory are protected” without having to take custody of the

records.xxxvi In Cook’s vision, archivists still function as guardians of evidence, but in a

conceptual, process-oriented framework, rather than in a physical, product-oriented one.xxxvii

The Australian records continuum approach reflects this way of thinking. In an electronic

environment, Frank Upward explained that the purpose of an archival institution is to “identify

and establish functional requirements for recordkeeping” that will enable the authentication of a

record. Archivists are accountable for ensuring the continuity of records and their role as “trace,

evidence and memory.” Rather than archivists ensuring authentic records after they cross into

archival custody, the “objectivity, understandability, availability, and usability of records need to

be inherent in the way that the record is captured.” Upward argued that the records continuum
model conceptualizes recordkeeping so that the essential role of archives, especially its

authentication function, can still be asserted in the virtual world when “the location of the

resources and services will be of no concern.”xxxviii With this shift in an archivist’s responsibility,

custody would be irrelevant for the identification, control, and accessibility of records over time

or for the fulfillment of the archival imperative.

Cal Lee and Helen Tibbo developed a complementary approach with their DigCCurr Matrix of

Digital Curation Knowledge and Skills. They outlined the emergence of the phrase “digital

curation” as a “set of opportunities for cross-institutional and cross-disciplinary engagement” for

caring for digital materials over their life cycles and into the future to support continuing

reuse.xxxix Digital curation addresses the complexities of digital preservation, especially the

technical challenges (e.g., bit rot, technological dependencies, technological obsolescence, etc.),

along with other dimensions, including the need for archivists to have the expertise, resources,

mandates, policies, procedures, standards, and collaborative relationships to sustain this work

over time. Lee and Tibbo consciously developed the DigCCurr Matrix “to reflect a post-custodial

perspective.” They explained, “Fixing the archival gaze solely on what happens within the walls

of repositories runs the risk of neglecting other essential aspects of the archival enterprise,

including engagement with creators and users of records, advocating for archival priorities,

influencing policies, and exploring connections across a diversity of collections.”xl

The DigCCurr Matrix includes six dimensions of skills and knowledge for building a curriculum

for digital curation, but two dimensions in particular are relevant to the value of responsible

custody. Their first dimension is “Mandates, Values, and Principles,” which “should serve as the
basis for criteria to evaluate whether the digital curation activities have been carried out

responsibly and appropriately.”xli It lists and further defines these as abstraction, accountability,

adaptability, authenticity, automation, chain of custody, collection, context, continuum approach,

critical inquiry, diversity, encapsulation, evidence, “informatting,” interoperability, long term,

modularity, open architecture, organizational learning, provenance, robustness, scale and

scalability, significant properties, stakeholders, standardization, sustainability, and trust.xlii A

responsible digital curator understands, attends to, or recognizes the value of all these. While

some are common to the archival enterprise, others come from the field of information

technology and can be specific to the nature of digital objects. When compared to a responsible

custodian, a responsible curator has a set of concerns beyond items in custody.

Lee and Tibbo also addressed custody in their sixth dimension, Transition Points in the

Information Continuum. Transition points are essentially the moments when digital resources

transition from one environment or circumstance to another (e.g., from an active use

environment to a secondary use environment) and where professional and ethical decisions are

usually necessary (e.g., Should metadata be generated? Should use be logged? Who should have

permission to access? etc.). Archival custody is one transition point, but not a mandatory one.

“Custody is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for successful digital curation.”xliii

Even within a more traditional analog framework, archivists question whether custody is

necessary for them to be of service or value in ensuring the survival of a diverse historical

record. In 1970, Howard Zinn spoke at the SAA Annual Meeting and challenged archivists to

“take the trouble to compile a whole new world of documentary material, about the lives, desires,
needs, of ordinary people.”xliv He lamented that our collections of “records, papers, and memoirs,

as well as oral history, is biased towards the important and powerful people of the society,

tending to ignore the impotent and obscure.”xlv For several decades afterward, archivists have

actively sought to document underdocumented, minority, and ethnic communities to help

preserve their legacies and diversify the historical record. However, troubling questions remain

about power dynamics when mainstream institutions, represented largely by educated white

individuals with practices rooted in Western thought, remove archival documentation from

communities with the assumption that mainstream institutions offer superior custodial

environments and practices that will ensure the longevity and the wider use of these archives. As

Rabia Gibbs asks, “When is it legitimate to remove materials in the interest of access and

preservation? Do materials that develop a broader regional or national scope of social

significance automatically move into a broader scope of ownership?”xlvi

Joel Wurl offered an answer based on his experience working with immigrant archives. He

argued that “custodianship needs to be replaced by stewardship.”xlvii With the custodial approach,

when archives are relinquished to a collecting institution, the institution begins to care more

about the importance of the archives to potential users than to the originators of the archives.

Wurl’s stewardship approach describes a different relationship between the originator and the

collecting institution, one that promulgates an ongoing partnership. He explained, “In a

stewardship approach, archival material is viewed less as property and more as cultural asset,

jointly held and invested in by the archive and the community of origin.”xlviii An individual or

group may give their archives to the collecting repository, but the relationship is just beginning,

not ending, with the transfer of materials. Archivists have a responsibility to forge lasting
relationships with people and communities so they can share in the investment and decision-

making involved in caring for their archives. Similar to the postcustodial approach for electronic

records, for Wurl, building strong, collaborative relationships with records creators throughout

and beyond the records life cycle is essential for managing archives effectively. In contrast, the

current responsible custody value does not privilege a relationship with the community of origin;

it is part of “various stakeholders” who might have “competing interests” at odds with others and

those of the repository.

In April 2006, a group of Native American and non-native American archivists, librarians,

museum curators, historians, and anthropologists developed the Protocols for Native American

Archival Materials. The protocols bring into sharp relief how Western archival principles and

practices, especially those centering around ownership and access, are sometimes at odds with

the culturally respectful care of native materials in the custody of non-native repositories.xlix The

protocols emphasize the need for repositories to build cooperative relationships with tribal

representatives, consult them on a wide range of issues, and forge “new models for shared

stewardship.” They emphasize that traditional knowledge systems “possess equal integrity and

validity” and that policies for preservation, access, and use based on traditional approaches

should be respected. This might mean that, after consultation and dialogue with native tribes,

repositories return or restrict culturally sensitive or sacred materials. Repositories might also

work closely with tribes to better understand how materials should be organized and described in

culturally appropriate and respectful ways, and deprecate Western arrangement and description

practices when they differ. The protocols ask for more negotiable, culturally respectful practices

in the care and custody of native materials and archives about Native Americans. SAA’s
responsible custody value, written four years later, is not entirely compatible with the protocols.

Whereas the protocols place respect for native tribes first, the responsible custody value puts

proper care of the records, as defined by the archivist, first. The value describes archivists

balancing stakeholder interests with the repository’s interests, the use of best practices, and other

factors in determining how to “ensure proper custody” of archives.

In August 2007, the Native American Roundtable requested that SAA Council endorse the

protocols. Council charged a task force to solicit feedback from SAA members about the

protocols and to prepare a report about how Council should respond. The task force presented a

summary of comments in support of and in opposition to the protocols to Council in February

2008.l Jennifer R. O’Neal characterizes the opposition as a “resistance to limiting access to

already available collections based upon specific beliefs, requests, and needs of a Native

American community; limiting universal access; opposition to the physical return or repatriation

of materials already deemed historically and culturally valuable from a Western perspective; and

fears that a consultative model for management of collections would be complicated, prohibitive,

and lengthy.”li Council declined to endorse the protocols, but acknowledged that “in a pluralistic

society, there is a need for ongoing dialog regarding matters of cultural sensitivity among

archivists, stakeholders, and the many and varied cultures represented within archival

repositories.”lii For O’Neal, the protocols highlight the need for archivists to stop perpetuating a

one-sided Western approach and embrace multiple perspectives and approaches for

understanding and preserving the past—to “promote respectful and collaborative stewardship.”liii
Even though SAA did not endorse the protocols, Elizabeth Joffrion and Natalia Fernández found

they still have an impact on professional practice. From surveys, they concluded that the

protocols paved the way for improved relationships between tribes and repositories managing

tribal content. Survey respondents actively sought the perspective of tribal communities in the

selection, arrangement, description, and preservation of materials. Respondents reported various

strategies for engaging tribal members in sharing their expertise. Most were open to providing

special treatment for culturally sensitive materials, including allowing tribes to identify that

content, restricting access to the content, or removing it from a physical or online collection.liv

Joffrion and Fernandez concluded that the protocols provide a useful framework for building

collaborative relationships with a community based on mutual respect and trust. Once seen as

challenging the core principles of Western archives, the Protocols for Native American Archival

Materials reflects a direction toward which our values must evolve if archivists aspire “to

document and preserve the record of the broadest possible range of individuals, socio-economic

groups, governance, and corporate entities in society.”lv

Whether in the case of Native American materials or formerly colonized countries around the

world, archives from and about native peoples have often remained in the custody or under the

control of an institution linked to a formerly dominant power or oppressor. This can perpetuate

historically unequal or unjust power relationships. Jeannette Bastian argues that when custodial

claims compete, such as in the case of former colonies or collapsed regimes, postcustodial

management practices can help archives support the basic human right to access one’s own

history.lvi Even though physical and legal custody may protect the evidential value of such

records, custody becomes problematic when it conflicts with an equally important obligation to
ensure a community has equitable access to its collective memory. As a solution, Bastian

proposes duplicating archives or creating online, virtual collocations of the collections to mediate

access between competing claims.lvii

When considering collaborative digitization projects between Western nations and Africa,

Michele Pickering asks, “How do we share knowledge without being exploited? How do we

enter into partnerships with countries in the North in ways that address but do not reinforce the

digital divide? How do we ensure that such partnerships do not merely reformulate issues of

heritage plundering and cultural asset-stripping?”lviii Even when mainstream institutions have the

best intentions for collaborative projects that expand access to materials in their custody, custody

itself can remain a problem. Jarrett Drake, reflecting on his work in building a community

archives about police violence against African Americans in Cleveland, explains, “It’s important

that we don’t re-traumatize communities or expose them for more white gaze, exploitation, and

plunder.”lix Rather than collecting documentation about black and brown lives for custody in

traditional archival repositories, Drake advocates for professional archivists to support the

creation of more community-based archives. To transform archiving into a more inclusive

process, he states that “the terms on which we partner, collaborate, and act must be rooted in

questioning, disruption and decolonization, lest we replicate the oppression currently reflected in

traditional archival repositories.”

The call to treat archival materials of historically marginalized or oppressed communities in

more respectful, culturally sensitive ways aligns closely with what Terry Cook describes as a

new archival paradigm of community archiving. Community archiving represents a shift “from
exclusive custodianship and ownership of archives to shared stewardship and collaboration.”lx In

this new paradigm, archivists act as “mentors, facilitators, coaches” for communities in a

participatory process of memory-making. Archivists partner directly with communities to

provide professional archival expertise, and sometimes archival digital infrastructures, but

archivists also learn from communities about their methods for telling stories, keeping memories,

authenticating their collective pasts, and tracking relationships. Empowering communities to take

care of their own records, in their own spaces, should support “society’s interests in having

expanded, vibrant, usable, and contextualized records for memory and identity.”lxi

Andrew Flinn, Mary Stevens, and Elizabeth Shepherd studied a broad range of practice for

community archives, with many options between those who delegated custody to mainstream

repositories and those who demanded complete autonomy. Flinn et al. found that minority

communities usually set up community archives as alternatives to mainstream repositories

because “a community’s custody over its archives and cultural heritage means power over what

is to be preserved and what is to be destroyed, how it is to be described and on what terms it is to

be accessed.”lxii They argue that by rethinking traditional archival approaches to custody and

exploring different kinds of relationships with groups, archivists could better fulfill their societal

responsibilities to build “a more inclusive historical narrative”lxiii and “diversify and transform

collections and narratives.”lxiv

In a follow-up work, Andrew Flinn offers more advice. He encourages archivists to care for

records outside of “the walls of their own repository” and help groups, communities, and

individuals “care for their collections in the context in which they were created and collected.”
Jenkinson probably would have approved of his suggestion that archivists help the original

custodians preserve their materials in their original places.lxv However, Flinn advocates for a

“more participatory approach where different methods of custody and management, and different

views of archival practice, and of collection and value are considered and embraced.”

Professional archivists might help train amateurs and volunteers to do preservation, processing,

or reference work, while striving for the records to remain in the care and under the control of

the community. He believes “some collections will, for some part of their life at least, be best

understood if kept within the context of the community which created them,” not in the custody

of a mainstream repository.lxvi

How can archivists figure out what kind of partnership might be best for a community,

individual, or group? Anne Gilliland developed a culturally sensitive approach. The Voice,

Identity, and Activism Framework helps archivists better understand the dynamics of memory-,

record-, and archives-creation in different communities and contexts. The framework is

“community-centric” in that it positions archivists to evaluate a community’s archives from the

community’s perspective, not from the perspective of the repository, the records, or archival

standards. Unlike the current responsible custody value, it holds archivists accountable for

looking out for the best interests of a community in the care of their materials.lxvii

The framework first encourages archivists to ask about a community’s motivations for keeping

archives. Does it want to promote its narratives and have more of a voice? Does it want to use

archives to resolve conflicts, heal from trauma, make claims, restore rights, or establish new

identities? The framework outlines ways to evaluate the nature of a community and its
relationship to memory and recordkeeping. What emotions are present, like distrust, exclusivity,

grief, guilt, hope, resilience, shame, or fear? Does the community want to forget or conceal its

story from outsiders, or does it fear exposure, obliteration, or loss? How do generations relate to

each other? Are community demographics changing; are there shifts in identity, assimilation, or

dispersion? What are the protocols for transmitting knowledge and stories, or for handling

sensitive or sacred materials? What records exist about the community versus records created

within the community, and who controls those? How has memory been recorded and transmitted;

what value is ascribed to these records? Finally, what policy considerations should be brought to

bear on the archives? Are best practices in place for caring for the archives? What is the

ownership status of the records, or how does the community understand or perceive ownership?

How can the community have equal voice in decisions about the records? Do preservation,

description, and access to the archives accord with community custom or best serve the needs of

the community? Are there circumstances when mainstream archives are the best option?lxviii

As archivists work with representatives of marginalized and diverse communities—empowering

them to maintain their own archives in sustainable ways or inviting them to share in decision-

making over archival processes in our repositories—how should archivists handle competing

stakeholders’ claims? Michelle Caswell argues that, with shared stewardship models, archivists’

foremost responsibility is to the community where the records originate, over the interests of

donors, governing boards, and others.lxix In the case of records concerning human rights abuses,

she argues that survivors should retain control over decision-making processes for appraisal,

description, digitization, and access.

Mark Greene expresses his discomfort, however, for privileging one community’s perspective

over another. Explaining his difficulties with the Protocols for Native American Materials, he

writes, “The document seems to demand a cultural hegemony by indigenous people at least as

objectionable as the hegemony once exercised by European-descended archivists.”lxx But, he

forcefully argues that archivists must do a better job diversifying the historical record. He

concludes that “we must seek a middle way of achieving multiculturalism between complete

cultural hegemony by large, mainstream repositories and infinite dispersion of documentation

among innumerable, often underresourced community archives.”lxxi He voices concerns about

the proliferation of community archives, “which are far too often located in rented space, staffed

solely by volunteers, open for uncertain hours, and equipped with dubious at best storage

conditions.”lxxii In the dystopian extreme, the archival record might be divided up and controlled

by a “group, sub-group, or sub-subgroup that asserts cultural authority to the materials” but does

not have the resources (or inclination) to provide equitable access or proper storage.lxxiii

However, he also recognizes that mainstream repositories “may be perceived as conquering and

subjugating minority history” and asks, “How do we avoid treating African Americans, Latinos,

Native Americans, gays, and others as subjects of history rather than as creators and owners of

their own history”?lxxiv He offers a seven-step plan for a middle way:

1. Reconsider “traditions” and invite “community conversation about acquisition priorities,

descriptive practices, and access policies.”
2. Consider the value of nontraditional collections for the evidence they contain.
3. “Seriously discuss the question of who does and should own/or control archival
materials.”
4. “Assist community archives and archivists to do their jobs better.”
5. Collect multicultural materials actively.
6. “Engage with diverse communities in a multiplicity of ways.”
7. Increase diversity in the profession.lxxv
Mark Greene’s middle way, appropriately enough, inspired me to suggest revisions to SAA’s

responsible custody value so that it might better guide archivists in making choices in different

settings and circumstances. A middle way might forge a common path for archivists no matter

where they work—in government agencies, academic institutions, religious institutions,

corporate settings, historical societies, community archives, public libraries, and the like—or

whether they work with digital and/or analog records. A middle way might accommodate a

variety of approaches, including those who employ traditional custodial practices; offer

postcustodial services; or support community archives.

One might argue that some person or organization will ultimately have physical custody or

virtual responsibility for safeguarding an archives, whether in a mainstream repository or not. If

not a mainstream repository, the responsible custody value might speak to those nonarchivists

with responsibilities for maintaining the safety and integrity of the archives over time. SAA’s

core values, however, are for archivists, and several authors argue effectively that focusing

archivists’ attention only on the materials for which their repositories have custody makes

archivists less effective at fulfilling a more expansive function to ensure the survival of and

continuing access to evidence of a diverse range of human experience.

A few common threads run throughout the literature, whether the focus is on postcustodial

approaches in an electronic records environment or on support for community archives in diverse

populations. Authors encourage active engagement with communities—records creators, users,

communities with claims or ties to the records, or other stakeholders. This engagement looks past

a repository’s holdings to build long-lasting relationships based on trust, respect, and sensitivity
to local contexts. Whether for corporate or community archivists, postcustodial approaches

encourage archivists to consider the cultures, systems, attributes, and environments to which

archives belong as they weigh solutions and invite participation in decision-making. Authors also

emphasize service over custody in describing an archivist’s purpose and responsibilities.

Archivists might also be auditors, educators, mentors, advisors, facilitators, partners, strategists,

or coordinators.

In revising the value, I suggest, as others have before me, replacing “custody” with

“stewardship.” Merriam-Webster defines stewardship as “the activity or job of protecting and

being responsible for something” or “the conducting, supervising, or managing of something;

especially: the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.”lxxvi

Stewardship is based on trust. It might narrowly convey the trust that a donor or community has

in archivists’ responsibility for managing records in their care, or it might more broadly convey

the societal obligations archivists have to preserve evidence of human experience.

Stewardship also focuses on responsible management—making good decisions and using

resources wisely. The responsible custody value captures this, but should be reoriented to look

beyond records in custody. The value currently describes how archivists “make reasonable and

defensible choices for the holdings” and “balance the sometimes competing interests of various

stakeholders.” With postcustodial thinking, archivists must make careful decisions about

priorities and resources for services that might support archives and interests outside of their

institutions’ holdings. With postcustodial approaches, interaction with stakeholders will increase,

as should archivists’ receptivity to their needs and suggestions. Given the variety of potential
situations, negotiations and compromises are a must if archivists are to remain respectful and

sensitive to local contexts, while considering their institutions’ missions and resources, their

obligations to users and the historical record, and professional ethics and best practices. Striving

toward sustainability is important both for archivists in their home institutions and for the groups

they support. Sustainability, or the ability to commit to servicing archives long-term, includes

aspects of organizational health, procedural accountability, and fiscal responsibility. The value

should represent these aspects of good management.

The current value states that archivists “manage records by following best practices in

developing facilities service standards, collection development policies, user service

benchmarks, and other performance metrics.” Of course, archivists should continue to manage

records by following best practices, but the practices listed are incomplete and an odd assembly,

perhaps rooted in the language du jour. Archivists should advocate for the development and use

of best practices and standards that help ensure the sustainability of archives, the longevity of

materials, and their accessibility and use, but we should expect these to evolve over time. We

shouldn’t need to update the core values to account for them. Furthermore, this language in the

core value must allow for more flexibility to accommodate a shared stewardship approach in

which archivists include stakeholders in decision-making or allow alternative ways of knowing

to inform arrangement and description. In a postcustodial approach, archivists are experts, but

not the only experts, in archival decision-making. Respectful stewards would adapt to the

approaches that best serve the needs of stakeholder communities and their environments.
As we replace custody with stewardship, we also should put people, rather than holdings, first.

This core value does not need to answer definitively who has authority or control over how

records are managed, but it certainly can demand that archivists consider their relationships to

people—in the past, present, and future—and the consequences of their decisions on people in

managing archives or offering archival services. By prioritizing archivists’ obligations to people,

this core value can accommodate evolving practices to treat archives as shared investments

managed collaboratively with a community.

The American Anthropological Association has an ethical principle to “do no harm.” This

principle states that anthropologists should not do “harm to dignity, and to bodily and material

well-being, especially . . . among vulnerable populations,” and that “this primary obligation can

supersede the goal of seeking new knowledge.” It encourages anthropologists to give “deliberate

and thoughtful consideration of potential unintended consequences and long-term impacts on

individuals, communities, identities, tangible intangible heritage and environments.”lxxvii This

approach to cultural sensitivity can help shape a revised core value.

Following are my suggested revisions. I offer these suggestions not as a perfect draft but as a

starting point for conversations about how to revise this value in the future so it may more

accurately reflect and inform current and evolving practice.

Current Revised
Responsible Custody: Archivists ensure Responsible Stewardship: Archivists
proper custody for the documents and consider the welfare, rights, needs, cultures,
records entrusted to them. As responsible and contexts of the people and groups
 stewards, archivists are committed to
making reasonable and defensible choices
for the holdings of their institutions. They
strive to balance the sometimes competing
interests of various stakeholders. Archivists
are judicious stewards who manage
records by following best practices in
developing facilities, service standards,
collection development policies, user
service benchmarks, and other performance
metrics. They collaborate with external
partners for the benefit of users and public
needs. In certain situations, archivists
recognize the need to deaccession materials
so that resources can be strategically
applied to the most essential or useful
materials.
affected by archival decisions and practices.
Archivists sensitively and respectfully
balance these considerations with
commitments to a diverse historical record,
institutional missions, professional ethics,
and public interest. Archivists advocate for
the conditions, resources, partnerships, and
policies necessary for the long-term integrity
and accessibility of evidence about the past.
Archivists apply professional standards and
best practices to manage archives in
effective, sustainable, and respectful ways.
Archivists seek collaborations for the benefit
of communities, archives, users, and public
needs. They make informed, defensible
choices when considering stakeholder
interests, determining priorities, allocating
resources, weighing risks, and carrying out
their work.

i
Society of American Archivists, “Council Meeting, February 26–29, 2009,”
http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0509-I-B-0209Minutes.pdf.
ii
Rosalye Settles, “Report: Task Force on Developing a Statement of Core Values of Archivists,” Society of
American Archivists, Council Meeting, February 2–4, 2010, http://www.archivists.org/council/Council0210/0210-
V-P-ValuesTF.pdf.
iii
Task Force on Developing a Statement of Core Values for Archivists, “Discussion: Draft of SAA Values
Statement,” Society of American Archivists, Council Meeting, May 26–28, 2010,
http://www.archivists.org/council/Council0510/0510-IV-A-SAAValuesTF.pdf.
iv
Society of American Archivists, “Council Meeting, May 26–28, 2010,”
http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0810-1-I-B-0510Minutes.pdf.
v
Task Force on Developing a Statement of Core Values for Archivists, “Revised Draft Values Statement,” Society
of American Archivists, Council Meeting, August 9, 2010, http://www.archivists.org/council/Council0810/0810-1-
III-D-ValuesTF.pdf.
vi
Rosalye Settles and Scott Cline, “Discussion Item: Revised Draft Values Statement,” Society of American
Archivists, Council Meeting May 24–26, 2011, http://www.archivists.org/council/Council0511/0511-IV-B-
CoreValues.pdf.
vii
Society of American Archivists, “Council Meeting Minutes, May 24–26, 2011,”
http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0811-1-I-B-0511Minutes.pdf.
viii
“SAA Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics,” Society of American Archivists,
http://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics.
ix
Society of American Archivists, “Council Meeting Minutes, May 26–28, 2010.”
x
Jeannette Bastian considers the history of custodial thinking in English-speaking archives more fully. See Jeannette
A. Bastian, “Taking Custody, Giving Access: A Postcustodial Role for a New Century,” Archivaria 53 (Spring
2002): 76–93.
xi
Terry Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The Revolution in Information Management and Archives in the
Post-Custodial and Post-Modernist Era,” Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 1
(2007): 400. Previously published as Archives & Manuscripts 22 (1994): 300–328.
xii
Jeannette Bastian, “A Question of Custody: The Colonial Archives of the United States Virgin Islands,” American
Archivist 64, no. 1 (2001): 97.
xiii
T. R. Schellenberg, Modern Archives: Principles and Techniques (1956, repr., Chicago: Society of American
Archivists, 1996).
xiv
Luciana Duranti, “Archives as a Place,” Archives & Social Studies: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 1
(2007): 447. Previously published as Archives & Manuscripts 24, no. 2 (1996): 242–55.
xv
Duranti, “Archives as a Place,” 454.
xvi
Duranti, “Archives as a Place,” 461.
xvii
Hilary Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration including the Problems of War Archives and Archive
Making (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1922).
xviii
Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, 15.
xix
Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, 39.
xx
Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, 40.
xxi
Jenkinson, A Manual of Archive Administration, 45.
xxii
Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 14.
xxiii
Modern Archives, 122–25.
xxiv
Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 125.
xxv
“A Guide to Deeds of Gift,” Society of American Archivists, last modified 2013,
http://www2.archivists.org/publications/brochures/deeds-of-gift.
xxvi
Hugh Breakey, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Property,” http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-con.
xxvii
F. Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” American Archivist 44, no. 3 (1981): 207.
xxviii
F. Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” 207. [please provide shortened citation]
xxix
F. Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” 212.
xxx
F. Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” 212-213.
xxxi
F. Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” 213.
xxxii
F. Gerald Ham, “Archival Strategies for the Post-Custodial Era,” 214.
xxxiii
“SAA Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics.”
xxxiv
Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 430.
xxxv
Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 429.
xxxvi
Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 430.
xxxvii
Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds,” 442.
xxxviii
Frank Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum—Part One: Postcustodial Principles and Properties,”
https://figshare.com/articles/Structuring_the_records_continuum_-
_part_one_postcustodial_principles_and_properties/4037445/1. Previously published as Archives and Manuscripts
24, no. 2 (1996).
xxxix
Christopher A. Lee and Helen Tibbo, “Where’s the Archivist in Digital Curation? Exploring the Possibilities
through a Matrix and Knowledge and Skills,” Archivaria 27 (2011): 127.
xl
Lee and Tibbo, “Where’s the Archivist in Digital Curation?,”160–61.
xli
Lee and Tibbo, “Where’s the Archivist in Digital Curation?,”140.
xlii
Lee and Tibbo, “Where’s the Archivist in Digital Curation?,”141–45.
xliii
Lee and Tibbo, “Where’s the Archivist in Digital Curation?,” 157.
xliv
As subsequently published in Howard Zinn, “Secrecy, Archives, and the Public Interest,” Midwestern Archivist
2, no. 2 (1977): 25.
xlv
Zinn, “Secrecy, Archives, and the Public Interest,” 21.
xlvi
Rabia Gibbs, “If We Knew Then What We Know Now: Applying Lessons from Past Eras of Ethnic Archiving
Collection Development to Contemporary Practice,” in Identity Palimpsests: Archiving Ethnicity in the US and
Canada, ed. Dominique Daniel and Amalia Levi (San Francisco: Litwin Books, 2014), 101–14.
xlvii
Joel Wurl, “Ethnicity as Provenance, In Search of Values and Principles for Documenting the Immigrant
Experience,” Archival Issues 29, no. 1 (2005): 72.
xlviii
Wurl, “Ethnicity as Provenance,” 72.
xlix
First Archivists Circle, Protocols for Native American Archival Materials, last modified April 9, 2007,
http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html.
l
Task Force, “Report: Task Force to Review Protocols for Native American Archival Materials,” Society of
American Archivists, Council Meeting, February 7–10, 2008, http://files.archivists.org/governance/taskforces/0208-
NativeAmProtocols-IIIA.pdf.
li
Jennifer R. O’Neal, “Respect, Recognition, and Reciprocity: The Protocols for Native American Archival
Materials,” in Identity Palimpsests, 134.
lii
Society of American Archivists, “Council Meeting Minutes, February 7–10, 2008,”
http://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/February%207%20%E2%80%93%2010,%202008%20.pdf.
liii
O’Neal, “Respect, Recognition, and Reciprocity,” 136.
liv
Elizabeth Joffrion and Natalia Fernández, “Collaborations between Tribal and Nontribal Organizations: Suggested
Best Practices for Sharing Expertise, Cultural Resources, and Knowledge,” American Archivist 78, no. 1 (2015):
209.
lv
From the core value of diversity, “SAA Core Values Statement and Code of Ethics.”
lvi
Bastian, “A Question of Custody.”
lvii
Bastian, “A Question of Custody,”114.
lviii
Michele Pickover, “Contestations, Ownership, Access and Ideology: Policy Development Challenges for the
Digitization of African Heritage and Liberation Archives” (presented at First International Conference on African
Digital Libraries and Archives, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 1–3, 2009)
http://mobile.wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/8929/14%20Pickover.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
lix
Jarrett M. Drake, “#ArchivesForBlackLives: Building a Community Archives of Police Violence in Cleveland,”
On Archivy (blog), April 22, 2016, https://medium.com/on-archivy/archivesforblacklives-building-a-community-
archives-of-police-violence-in-cleveland-93615d777289#.amgzsujxr.
lx
Terry Cook, “Evidence, Memory, Identity, and Community: Four Shifting Archival Paradigms,” Archival Science
13, no. 2 (2013): 115.
lxi
Cook, “Evidence, Memory, Identity, and Community,” 115.
lxii
Andrew Flinn, Mary Stevens, and Elizabeth Shepherd, “Whose Memories, Whose Archives? Independent
Community Archives, Autonomy, and the Mainstream,” Archival Science 9 (2009): 83.
lxiii
Flinn, Stevens, and Shepherd, “Whose Memories, Whose Archives?,” 81.
lxiv
Flinn, Stevens, and Shepherd, “Whose Memories, Whose Archives?,” 83.
lxv
Andrew Flinn, “Archival Activism: Independent and Community-led Archives, Radical Public History and the
Heritage Professions,” InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies 7, no. 2 (2011): 1–20,
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9pt2490x.
lxvi
Flinn, “Archival Activism,” 16.
lxvii
Anne Gilliland, Conceptualizing 21st-Century Archives (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2014), 21.
lxviii
Gilliland, Conceptualizing 21st-Century Archives, 22–29.
lxix
Michelle Caswell, “Toward a Survivor-centered Approach to Records Documenting Human Rights Abuse:
Lessons from Community Archives,” Archival Science 14 (2014): 307–22.
lxx
Mark Greene, “Into the Deep End: One Archivist’s Struggles with Diversity, Community, Collaboration, and
Their Implications for Our Profession” in Through the Archival Looking Glass: A Reader on Diversity and
Inclusion, ed. Mary Caldera and Kathryn M. Neal (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 2014), 33.
lxxi
Greene, “Into the Deep End,” 36.
lxxii
Greene, “Into the Deep End,” 35-36.
lxxiii
Greene, “Into the Deep End,” 36.
lxxiv
Greene, “Into the Deep End,” 32.
lxxv
Greene, “Into the Deep End,” 41–44.
lxxvi
Merriam-Webster, s.v.“Stewardship,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stewardship.
lxxvii
“Do No Harm,” American Anthropological Association, Ethics Forum, November 1, 2012,
http://ethics.americananthro.org/ethics-statement-1-do-no-harm.